Does anybody find it funny that spam is dealt with by punishing the receiver (deleting valid email) rather than the senders (closing their accounts)?

Personally I like the way my graywolf.com host does it. The label suspected spam with a "SPAM" label and let me decide what to do about it. I suspect charter.net deletes a lot of my incoming email because I do not get very much spam any longer and quite often miss PDML posts.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------


William Robb wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" Subject: OT: Lost E-mails


There was an AP news article this morning in the paper (from 2-25-05). It addressed the increasingly unreliable state of e-mail.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/E_MAIL_RELIABILITY?SITE=IDBOI&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT




What the article doesn't mention is that the entire problem would go away if spamming was an offence punishable by draw and quartering, and a few people were publicly punished for it.


William Robb





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 2/27/2005



Reply via email to